You are absolutely right, I did start by asking about C14; its
insignificance is understood. I was responding to some of the more
general comments about climate effects, which is also as I understood
it. Once again, thanks to all who responded.
On 17 May, 03:31, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You asked about C14, not about dust. Cooling from nuclear explosions
> is possible; note that remote tests even above ground will raise much
> less smoke than attacks on actual targets as has already been
> mentioned.
>
> If I recall correctly, the Kuwait oil fires set by Saddam Hussein in
> the first Gulf War had a measurable cooling effect on parts of India,
> on the order of a few watts per square meter in some places. i.e.,
> comparable locally to global warming forcing.
>
> mt
>
> On 5/16/07, Fergus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 May, 18:36, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The scientific concensus is that nuclear testing did not affect the
> > > > climate,
> > > > therefore you will find there is little literature out there that
> > > > supports
> > > > your view.
>
> > > > For peer reviewed science google for "nuclea winter".
>
> > > I think the "nuclear winter" calculations are based on smoke from
> > > widespread fires causing the cooling, it's not the nuclear explosion
> > > itself, if I understand this correctly.
>
> > > If there was evidence that the tests had affected climate, I am sure
> > > that would be in the literature, including the IPCC reports,
> > > especially so, if there was any realistic chance that it was the
> > > tests, rather than aerosols/natural variability that had caused the
> > > cooling up to the 1970's. This would matter a great deal to our
> > > understanding of the climate system and aerosols. If it's not there in
> > > the report, unless given good evidence to the contrary, and the
> > > speculations on the Daly site are not good evidence!,
>
> > > I'll presume that the IPCC had good reason to summarily dismiss the
> > > idea.
>
> > Thanks to all of you for your responses.TBH, this was pretty much as I
> > suspected, but one doesn't want to presume.
> > OTOH, how do we then respond to the 2 papers in ACP this week, dealing
> > with the human and climate impacts of a regional nuclear war, which
> > specifically concludes that such an event would have an effect on the
> > global climate (cooling)?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
